by IUF Asia/Pacific | Mar 7, 2024 | ภาษาไทย Thai, Freedom of Association
แนวปฏิบัติ OECD ของบรรษัทข้ามชาติ ในส่วนของการทำธุรกิจอย่างมีความรับผิดชอบ มีการอัพเดทเนื้อหาเพิ่มเติมในปี 2023 โดยเน้นหนักในเรื่องหน้าที่ของบริษัทที่ต้องเคารพสิทธิคนทำงานรวมกลุ่มได้อย่างเสรี ซึ่งได้เพิ่มเติมประเด็นสำคัญว่าบรรษัทข้ามชาติต้องเคารพสิทธิคนทำงานอย่างไรบ้าง
ก่อนหน้านี้ แนวปฏิบัติ OECD สำหรับบรรษัทข้ามชาติว่าด้วยการดำเนินธุรกิจอย่างมีความรับผิดชอบ บทที่ 5 เรื่องการจ้างงานและแรงงานสัมพันธ์ วรรค 1 ระบุว่า
- เคารพสิทธิคนทำงานที่ได้รับการว่าจ้างโดยบรรษัทข้ามชาติ ให้พวกเขาก่อตั้งหรือเข้าร่วมสหภาพแรงงาน และ เป็นตัวแทนองค์กรที่พวกเขาเลือก
ปัจจุบันในปี 2023 มีการเพิ่มเติมเนื้อหา โดยระบุว่า
- เคารพสิทธิคนทำงานในการก่อตั้งหรือเข้าร่วมสหภาพแรงงาน และเป็นตัวแทนองค์กรที่พวกเขาเลือก รวมทั้งหลีกเลี่ยงการแทรกแซงการตัดสินใจของคนทำงานในการก่อตั้งหรือเข้าร่วมสหภาพแรงงานหรือเป็นตัวแทนองค์กรที่พวกเขาเลือก
การเพิ่มเติมแก้ไขเนื้อหาดังกล่าวมีความสำคัญ เนื่องจากบรรษัทข้ามชาติส่วนใหญ่มักจะอ้างว่าเคารพสิทธิคนทำงานในการก่อตั้งหรือเข้าร่วมสหภาพที่พวกเขาเลือก แต่กลับอนุญาตให้ฝ่ายบริหารในประเทศ หรือ ในท้องถิ่นแทรกแซงการใช้สิทธิดังกล่าวของคนทำงาน
การแทรกแซงของฝ่ายบริหารเกิดขึ้นหลายลักษณะในสถานประกอบการ โดยเป็นการบังคับให้คนทำงานต้องกลับไปคิดทบทวนถึงการก่อตั้งหรือเข้าร่วมสหภาพของพวกเขา บ่อยครั้งฝ่ายบริหารมักจะอ้างว่า ตนแค่ให้ “คำแนะนำ” แก่ลูกจ้างเท่านั้น หรือลูกจ้างเข้ามาขอคำแนะนำ ฝ่ายบริหารยังมักอ้างว่าพวกเขา “แค่ถาม” ลูกจ้างเกี่ยวกับสหภาพเท่านั้น
การให้ “คำแนะนำ” หรือ “แค่ถาม” ถือเป็นการแทรกแซงและการละเมิดสิทธิคนทำงานที่จะได้เลือกอย่างอิสระ เสรีภาพในการเลือกหรือเข้าร่วมสหภาพมีนัยยะว่าคนทำงานสามารถตัดสินใจได้โดยเป็นอิสระจากการแทรกแซง หรืออิทธิพลของฝ่ายบริหารรูปแบบต่างๆ ดังนั้นฝ่ายบริหารต้องวางตัวเป็นกลาง และไม่ส่งอิทธิพลต่อการเลือกของคนทำงานไม่ว่าจะทางตรงหรือทางอ้อม
คณะกรรมการที่ปรึกษาด้านสหภาพแรงงานของ OECD (TUAC) ได้ให้ตัวอย่างของการกระทำหรือคำพูดที่ถือเป็น “การแทรกแซงการตัดสินใจของคนทำงานในการก่อตั้งหรือเข้าร่วมสหภาพแรงงาน” ดังต่อไปนี้
- การบอกคนทำงานว่าพวกเขาเป็น “ทีมงาน” หรือ “ครอบครัวเดียวกัน” จึงไม่จำเป็นต้องมีตัวแทนหรือมีการยื่นข้อเรียกร้องร่วม
- ดูถูกหรือด้อยค่าสหภาพแรงงาน ในการหาตัวแทนเพื่อดำเนินการเจรจาต่อรองร่วม
- แสดงข้อความหรือการกระทำใดใดที่ชี้นำให้คนทำงานคิดว่างานและรายได้ของพวกเขาจะเปลี่ยนไป หากเข้าร่วมหรือก่อตั้งสหภาพ
- สร้างการรับรู้ว่าแนวปฏิบัติ OECD จะไม่ถูกนำมาใช้ในสถานประกอบการ ดังนั้นคนทำงานจะไม่ได้รับประโยชน์ใดจากแนวปฏิบัติดังกล่าว
- ฟ้องร้องคนทำงาน ใช้อำนาจศาลในการปฏิเสธหรือถ่วงเวลาการตัดสินใจเรื่องการมีตัวแทน
การกระทำใดที่มีลักษณะข้างต้นถือว่ามีแนวโน้มจะนำไปสู่การละเมิดหลักการ OECD ได้ทั้งสิ้น
การกระทำที่มีลักษณะคล้ายคลึงกับตัวอย่างข้างต้นถือเป็นการบ่อนเซาะสิทธิระหว่างประเทศ ว่าด้วยการสมาคมอย่างเสรีและสิทธิในการจัดตั้ง ซึ่งเป็นหลักปฏิญญาสากลที่ 87 และ 98 ขององค์การแรงงานสากล อันเป็นหลักปฏิบัติพื้นฐานที่รัฐบาลทุกประเทศ นายจ้างทุกคน ต้องปฏิบัติตตาม หมายความว่าเป็นหน้าที่ที่นายจ้างจะต้องปฏิบัติตาม โดยเคารพสิทธิของคนทำงานในการรวมกลุ่มได้อย่างเสรีและมีสิทธิจัดตั้งองค์กรของคน ถือเป็นระเบียบปฏิบัติ มิใช่ความสมัครใจ
by IUF Asia/Pacific | Mar 2, 2024 | Freedom of Association, Human Rights
At the height of fear and intimidation through “red-tagging” in the Philippines in 2019-2021, Coca-Cola Philippines stands out in its failure to protect and respect workers’ rights. Subsequent inaction by The Coca-Cola Company’s Bottling Investments Group (BIG) not only fails to provide remedy, but its inaction perpetuates local management interference in workers’ choices in forming or joining trade unions.
The joint submission by trade unions in the Philippines to the ILO High-Level Tripartite Mission (HLTM) on January 23, 2023, observed, that the government’s National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) targeted the Federation and Cooperation of Cola, Beverage, and Allied Industry Unions (FCCU-SENTRO-IUF) with measures to convince workers employed in Coca-Cola to disaffiliate from the organization. The NTF-ELCAC repeatedly tagged the FCCU as a front organization of the country’s communist insurgency:
Among the tactics employed to deceive and intimidate workers are house visits by persons claiming to be military/police and part of the NTF-ELCAC; orientations tagging FCCU-SENTRO leaders and organizers as “reds” (some of these in town hall meetings convened by corporate management, others are orientations hosted by local government units); police harassment of union elections and meetings and; the urging of workers to support “non-radical” unions, which almost always mean company unions.
The joint submission provides several examples of “red-tagging” by the police and military forces targeting workers in Coca-Cola bottling operations and distribution centers. The fact that they could not only enter the company premises but speak at “town hall” meetings organized by management indicates the extent of local management’s complicity in this campaign of fear and intimidation:
It would be naive to assume that these acts of intimidation and deception are not encouraged and taken advantage of by the company’s management, given the fact that some were perpetrated in town hall meetings convened by corporate management. From 2019 to 2021, these incidences of red-tagging were documented in the National Capital Region, Ilagan (Isabela), San Fernando (Pampanga), Bacolod, Davao, Tagum, and General Santos.
In this “red-tagging” the security forces repeatedly accused the FCCU President Alfredo Marañon of being linked to the armed communist insurgency. This is despite the fact that FCCU is affiliated to SENTRO an independent national trade union center with no links whatsoever with armed insurgency. Yet this false accusation against the FCCU President was used by the police and military to instruct workers on which union to choose in the certification elections at Coca-Cola facilities.
The fact that Coca-Cola Philippines had unfairly terminated the FCCU President Alfredo Marañon at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020 (which The Coca-Cola Company’s Bottling Investments Group (BIG) has also failed to address), clearly reinforced the effectiveness of the fear and intimidation used to determine workers’ choice of union.
In the case of Coca-Cola logistics workers in Davao in Mindanao, they were instructed to join a specific union chosen by management as a condition of their employment. Despite this Coca-Cola logistics workers overcame their fear and interference by management and chose to join an independent, democratic union in July 2021.
From 2019-2021 “red-tagging” was widespread across several industries and sectors in the Philippines. Yet one of the reasons it was so readily adopted by local management at Coca-Cola Philippines is that there was already a well established practice in the company of politically interfering in workers’ choice of union. This was established more than a decade ago
On March 1, 2011, Coca-Cola Philippines appointed Greg Stone, a US citizen holding a Special Resident Retiree’s Visa (SSRV) in the Philippines as its new Head of Security. Stone was reportedly a former US Special Forces “adviser” in the Philippines, and was hired in the 1990s by the San Roque Multi-Purpose (SRMP) project, and later the San Roque Power Corporation, to systematically destroy community opposition to the San Roque dam.
Based on his background and the task of dismantling organizations, Stone was referred to as “demolition man” within Coca-Cola Philippines. Despite having no license to operate in the Philippines in the security profession, Stone replaced the Filipino head of security and his team.
Stone’s new team prepared a chart of unions in the Philippines showing where they allegedly stand in the political spectrum, and the dangers and risks posed to workers. By labelling certain unions, federations and labour alliances as “leftist” management used this chart to warn workers against any affiliation to these organizations. These political education classes were conducted over a period of one year. The Coca-Cola Company’s Bottling Investments Group (BIG) failed to address this as a violation of freedom of association, giving local management impunity.
Stone’s demolition program in Coca-Cola Philippines only ended shortly before the The Coca-Cola Company’s Bottling Investments Group (BIG) sold the operations to Mexico-based bottler, FEMSA in December 2012. In December 2018, Coca-Cola Philippines was again bought by The Coca-Cola Company’s Bottling Investments Group (BIG) which oversaw operations throughout “red-tagging” in 2019-2021.
The refusal of The Coca-Cola Company’s Bottling Investments Group (BIG) to address systematic trade union rights violations and to undo the damage of the political interference in unions in 2011-2012 allowed a political and organizational culture to develop in the management of Coca-Cola Philippines where managers truly believed they had a right – if not a duty – to intervene and “warn” workers against certain trade unions. This would later be applied to FCCU and eventually find a common agenda with the NTF-ELCAC’s assault on worker and trade union rights.
The Coca-Cola Company’s Bottling Investments Group (BIG) now claims that the proof that Coca-Cola Philippines respects the right to freedom of association is in the multitude of unions and collective agreements that are signed. But there is no recognition of the fact that workers are in unions they did not freely choose, and that more than a decade of political interference by management created the union landscape that exists in the company today.
Workers’ choices are shaped by what they believe management will allow or permit, and the constant warnings of the dangers posed by certain unions. Instead of working with independent, democratic trade unions to undo this damage and prevent these rights violations from recurring (the very meaning of “remedy”), The Coca-Cola Company simply relies on reassurances from Coca-Cola Philippines management that there is no problem today. This is a massive failure of human rights due diligence with far-reaching consequences.
According to the announcement on the updated OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct:
The 2023 update reflects a decade of experience since their last review in 2011 and responds to urgent social, environmental, and technological priorities facing societies and businesses.
The decade of experience of workers in the Coca-Cola system in the Philippines is precisely the interference in their right to freely choose their unions and relentless pressure to join only those unions deemed acceptable by management.
In fact the 2023 update of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct adds a critical elaboration to the obligation of companies to respect workers’ rights freedom of association: management must avoid interfering with workers’ choice to establish or join a trade union.
It is time for Coca-Cola Philippines management to stop interfering and for The Coca-Cola Company to remedy the damage done.
by IUF Asia/Pacific | Mar 2, 2024 | Freedom of Association
The 2023 update of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct reaffirms the obligation of companies to respect the right of workers to freedom of association by adding an important elaboration on how this right is respected.
In the 2011 OECD Guidelines, Chapter V Employment and Industrial Relations, 1, reads:
a) Respect the right of workers employed by the multinational enterprise to establish or join trade unions and representative organisations of their own choosing.
The 2023 update now reads:
a) Respect the right of workers to establish or join trade unions and representative organisations of their own choosing, including by avoiding interfering with workers’ choice to establish or join a trade union or representative organisation of their own choosing.
This is significant because while most transnational companies claim to respect the right of workers to establish or join trade unions of their own choosing, they nonetheless allow their national and/or local management to interfere in the exercise of that right.
This interference covers a range of actions by management in the workplace that compel workers to rethink forming a union or joining a union. Management often claims that they were only giving “advice” to their employees or that employees came to them asking for advice. Management will also claim that they “only asked” employees about the union.
Giving “advice” or “only asking” is interference and violates the right of workers to freely choose. The freedom to choose to join or form a union implicitly means that the worker makes her decision free from any kind of interference or influence by management. Management must remain completely neutral and not directly or indirectly influence workers’ choices.
- Telling workers that they are a “team” or “family” and do not need representation or collective bargaining agreements.
- Disparaging the trade union seeking to represent workers for collective bargaining.
- Making any statement or taking any action that would lead a worker to think their work and income would change if they formed a trade union.
- Creating a perception that the OECD Guidelines do not apply to the enterprise, so workers would not gain anything seeking to implement them.
- Using judicial appeals to deny or delay workers’ choice of a representative.
- Relocating or sudden conversions of work to digital technology after workers demonstrate their choice for a representative.
Any one of these actions potentially constitutes a violation of the OECD Guidelines.
These and similar actions undermine the internationally recognized right to freedom of association and the right to organize under ILO Convention Nos 87 and 98. These are fundamental conventions to which all government and employers are bound. This means that the obligation of employers to abide by this and respect the right of workers to freedom of association and the right to organize is mandatory, not voluntary.
by Shruti P | Nov 9, 2023 | Campaigns, Freedom of Association, Human Rights
(more…)
by IUF Asia/Pacific | Nov 9, 2023 | Campaigns, Collective Bargaining Rights, Due diligence, Freedom of Association
A day after Barry Callebaut terminated the elected trade union representative of the Barry Callebaut Employees Union (BCEU) in Baramati, India, on November 6, 2023, national management offered to sign a collective agreement with the union. But on one condition. BCEU must state that all of the rights violations and abuses by the management that occurred over the past 12 months are untrue. In other words, for union members to exercise their collective bargaining rights, the union must lie. The assumption is that the withdrawal of all the (well-documented) allegations will allow the company to claim it was always in compliance.
After months of pressure and harassment and the victimization of the union’s elected General Secretary – ultimately ending in his unfair termination – union membership fell from 28 to just 18. But the global company still wants the remaining 18 workers to say it was all untrue. In return they will be allowed to have a collective agreement that will bring economic benefits to their families. In a decent world this would be seen for what it is – the bullying of workers in an impoverished rural community by a corporate giant.
The refusal of Barry Callebaut to remedy the rights issues at its Baramati factory and respect the fundamental right of all workers to freedom of association and collective bargaining raises serious questions about how it operates as a global company. From the outset of the dispute, global management first denied any non-compliance without investigating. Only after questions were raised by representatives of Barry Callebaut employees in Europe did corporate management finally investigate beyond making a few phone calls. Yet in the following months it became clear that every reply and every action by the company was determined by local management in Baramati. The very same people involved in the rights violations.
This raises serious questions about how Barry Callebaut views compliance and how it addresses allegations of rights violations. Despite all of its global policies and commitments, the approach is first to deny and defend, then to ask those directly involved whether they did it. This then generates sufficient evidence to justify the initial denial.
If this is the company’s approach, then human rights due diligence simply will not work. This then raises questions about all other forms of human rights violations (including modern slavery and child labor) that the company claims are untrue or are now resolved.
Even more remarkable is that major global food companies that are supplied by Barry Callebaut were asked by unions to investigate and carry out their own human rights due diligence. So they asked Barry Callebaut. That was the extent of it. More rigorous due diligence involved longer conversations with Barry Callebaut. The same replies came back. No one spoke to the union. No one spoke to the workers involved.
The story that local management tells – which is retold by Barry Callebaut – is that the union General Secretary was asleep on the job and the contract worker he was supposed to be supervising was asleep inside a machine. They add: imagine the tragedy if someone had turned the machine on! This phrase is repeated by national and regional corporate management, global management, and the companies supplied by Barry Callebaut – all who claimed to have conducted their own due diligence.
Early in the dispute it was agreed that the union General Secretary, Rajesh, had fallen asleep while on duty. He was sitting on the floor because there is no seating in the production area, and fell asleep for about15 minutes. As anyone in the Baramati factory knows, this happens all the time. No doubt it needs to be rectified with better work arrangements and seating.
But in this case the supervisor secretly took photos of Rajesh then circulated them. When Rajesh later asked the supervisor to delete photos, local management accused him of “tampering with evidence”. The same phrase is repeated at all levels of Barry Callebaut and the company’s buyers. But evidence of what? Given the mismanagement of schedules and working time it is common at the factory that workers sleep for short periods of time. What about the lack of seating? If anyone saw a photo of a worker in Europe sitting on the floor, they would ask, “Why is he on the floor?” But no one at any level in all their due diligence asked why or investigated this. (Is the real answer, “because it’s India?”)
The horror story we are told is that a contract worker sleeping inside a machine that he was tasked to clean. Rajesh was supposedly supervising this worker. It is incredibly dangerous and unacceptable. Of that there is no doubt. But no one investigated why or how this happened.
Why was the overworked, underpaid contract worker asleep inside a machine?
Local management’s horror scenario (“what if the machine was turned on?”) is repeated everywhere. But no one asked:
How would it be possible to turn the machine on?
Aren’t machines at Barry Callebaut’s India operations locked when they are being cleaned?
There were also no questions about the failure of management to ensure safety standards and to supervise third party contract workers. In fact there were no questions at all about safety standards or measures to ensure a safe workplace (which are fundamental rights included in human rights due diligence).
The reason no one asked these questions is because terminating an employee for falling asleep for 15 minutes would be seen as excessive. It could lead to questions about why Rajesh was treated more harshly (because he is the General Secretary of a union that local management cannot control?) Therefore, tampering with evidence (asking a supervisor to delete photos taken on his private phone) and risking the life a contract worker (“what if the machine was turned on?”) justifies termination.
No one asked any questions beyond the answers already given by local management. That in itself is a failure of human rights diligence and sends a warning signal regarding both compliance and corporate governance.
The fact that global companies that buy chocolate ingredients from Barry Callebaut also did not ask these questions suggests that due diligence has simply not been done.
See Here’s what happened at Barry Callebaut India
by IUF Asia/Pacific | Nov 4, 2023 | Collective Bargaining Rights, Food Service Workers, Freedom of Association, Human Rights, Secure Jobs
The IUF-affiliated National Union of Food Delivery Riders (RIDERS-SENTRO) held a press conference on November 3, to denounce the systematic violation of rights and persecution of delivery riders by Grab and Foodpanda in the Philippines.
In recent weeks food delivery riders mobilized to protest against an unfair fare matrix suddenly imposed by Grab. In response to the protests, Grab terminated and suspended riders for speaking out. At the same time, Foodpanda continued its abusive, unsafe practices, placing food delivery above the safety and wellbeing of riders.
Grab is poised to take over Foodpanda operations in the Philippines. Delivery Hero, the Germany-based parent company of Foodpanda, is ignoring these rights abuses as it prepares to sell delivery operations in several Asian countries including the Philippines.
National Union of Food Delivery Riders (RIDERS-SENTRO) Press Release [PDF]
RIDERS PRESS CONFERENCE TO LAUNCH NATIONAL CAMPAIGN ON NOVEMBER 3, 2023
QUEZON CITY — After the massive mobilizations of Grab riders in Metro Manila in the previous month, it is unfortunate that Grab continues to ignore the legitimate grievances of its partners. With many riders slapped with arbitrary suspensions, RIDERS-SENTRO finds no choice but to continue our campaign to advance the full respect and recognition of riders’ rights across all platforms. To this end, RIDERS-SENTRO held a press conference to publicly launch a national campaign called Respect Riders’ Rights. Among the demands that we riders will forward include:
- Fair rates
- Comprehensive insurance
- Magna Carta for Delivery Riders
- Reinstatement of suspended delivery riders
- Union representation of delivery riders
The speakers at the press conference were the suspended riders from both Grab and Foodpanda. They spoke about riders’ issues such as the recent imposition of the unfair fare matrix, which the riders opposed. However, Grab’s response was to terminate and suspend the riders who protested against it. Many such riders were terminated by Grab because they attended assemblies intended to raise the concerns of all riders with regards to various issues and, most importantly, the issue of the fare restructure that will reduce their income.
The issue of insurance was also brought up at the press conference as riders frequently face the threat of accidents on the road. RIDERS – Pampanga member Jeremiah Javier shared that just recently in Pampanga, one of their colleagues met with an accident while on duty. The first question of their dispatcher was “was the food delivered?” Foodpanda also suspended the rider after a few days. Platform companies only give medical reimbursements, if any. More often than not, it is the riders themselves that come together to help each other in accidents or in death.
Mary Rose Evardone, a Grab rider that has been red-tagged and suspended twice, called for due process. Despite important service both to the company and the general public, as well as the regular nature of delivery riders’ work, they continue to be treated as “delivery-partners, free-lancers, self-employed and independent contractors”. This is used to justify their lower incomes and the lack of sufficient social protection, despite the fact that their work can reach 12-15 hours a day, and that platform company management has the power to suspend and off-board riders, even without due process.
RIDERS-SENTRO sees that the root problem of these issues is the platform companies’ lack of respect towards delivery riders. Instead of taking proper action, platform companies respond with termination and suspension of riders who call for respect for their rights. With this, RIDERS-SENTRO has launched a petition that calls on legislators to pass the Freelance Protection Bill and for customers to support their delivery riders. The petition can be accessed through https://chng.it/vhLnRBxbyc.
###
The National Union of Food Delivery Riders, is the first and only national union of delivery riders in the country. It has members from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao that forward riders’ interests for decent work and just livelihoods. Its riders are from different apps such as Grab, Foodpanda, and Maxim.
